Born of SFPT: Taiwan and Micronesia
Peter Rosenblatt is a former US Ambassador, WTO representative, and US attorney. This is the best expert centerpiece of my own parallel arguments of ‘insular law’ and Taiwan status of SFPT. His conclusion is for “One China” consensus of 1992.
It is not so obvious but the insular perspective is very strong. Stanley Roth once worked for him.
Stanley Roth Implicated
I wrote this being incensed over the events of the Free Compact…as I was researching the Taiwan status. It might sound “Neo-McCarthistic” but the antics of the Clinton appointees had just gone on too long for me by then. That was the straw that really broke the camel’s back and so I wrote the following on Taiwan status:
Insular Law and Taiwan Human Rights
Taiwan Status in US Courts
This is independent legal research and is truly fantastic for many points. The foremost is that the outcomes of TRA litigation is predicated upon the more favorable nationality claimed…ROC or PRC. The court just struggles, while those idiots at State and Interior kept so silent on “insular rights”. So what about “Taiwan nationality” under SFPT?
My “working theory” in gibberish Taiwan Status: Under Taiwan Relations Act
Even the CIA can’t decipher it yet.
Rep. Wexler’s “Self-determination Resolution”
How do you quote the Montevideo Convention and then call for “self-determination” which is for sub-sovereign status issues? Good job FAPA!!
Wexlar is the leader of the Taiwan Caucus being formed on April 25, 2002. Yes, Taiwanese will have more Congressional representation than the US citizens living in Taiwan! Including far more direct access for those Legislators in the ROC.
Better Perspective on SFPT
Western Press 2-28 Articles on “Mandate Status”
TSEA by the Backdoor?
Harvey Feldman corrected me on the “forbids” diplomatic relations in TRA. It is ambigious.
Harvey Feldman: Drafter of TRA
New England Law Review
Rubin and Rosenblatt are very good, Chen is just pushing “ROC is a soveriegn nation” crap again.
Who owns Taiwan: a search for international title, by Lung-chu Chen and W.M. Reisman of The Yale Law School. Yale Law Journal, Volume 81, Number 4, March 1972.
Human Rights, Yah right.
I am very sharply critical of any ROC propaganda which contravenes the US Constitution and FM 27-10. While I don’t agree with the “statusquo”, I must follow the supreme law of the land, and not ROC “legal opinions”. So DON’T think I am flaming him personally.
What about the SFPT?
UK Reports on 1950-51 Period of SFPT
Formosa Betrayed is written in strict accordance with FM 27-10. This is the legal handbook of the SFPT. The “law-making treaties” are the governing body of treaties for SFPT and FM 27-10 makes it decipherable. Especially any “interim status” of peace treaty cessions.
Bilateral Treaty Issues under SFPT
Don’t ignore the US-ROC Mutual Defense Treaty as its Notes are Dulles’ “effective territorial control” of Taiwan by the ROC. No sovereignty transfer means the MDT was especially designed to be concurrent to the SFPT. CKS attacked the Mainland from Taiwan without any US approval, the USA would pull the territorial rug right out from underneath him.
On a theorectical plane, I would attack the issue from the perspective of immigration law. That is not just the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, but the entire case law spectrum of aliens.
SFPT interim cession most capriciously sandwiches Taiwan status outside the USA as an outlying possession because of the Chinese Exclusion Case but still inside the territorial jurisdiction of the Chinese Alien Rights Cases (Downes v. Bidwell). For any US immigration law purposes of TRA, these “Chinese aliens” are still being indefinitely detained by the Laws of War (eg. Geneva Convention). The “re-establishment” or “refoulement” of Chinese aliens of a Taiwan domicile was executively ordered by the Shanghai Communiques. But as the USA is also the Detaining Power of SFPT cession, there is a creation of an alien detention center coming within that special territorial jurisdiction. This is a Meize status alien being stopped on the border of Ellis Island.
Indefinite detention of innocent civilians cannot be so indefinitely continued under the One China policy, if operating as the Chinese Exclusion Act under the color of law. This is a parole status because of ambiguities of “Chinese nationality”. Under Johnson v. Eigentrager, it was ruled that friendly aliens so coming within the territorial jurisdiction have ascending rights of St. Paul, a citizen of Rome. Civis Romanus Sum, Jus Feciale. SFPT is self-executing for immigration cases of any lost nationality claims made under treaties ratified before Christmas, 1952.